Concerning the Election


Concerning the recent Election everyone is calling for healing and unity.  I want healing and unity but I know there are road blocks to it. As the scripture states, “How can two walk together unless they agree?” I want things to heal but that doesn’t mean we should soften and become lax on Moral issues or lax proclaiming man’s responsibility to call upon the Lord. We shouldn’t give in to compassion without reality. It doesn’t mean we take from those who have and make them support those who don’t. It does mean we care and volunteer to give responsibly to the needs of our friends. It means The Church steps up and accountability is restored in giving. It means we don’t give to sink holes who destructively tear down on a consistent basis. It means we become reasonable and responsible. Indiana Democrats are not in line with this. The Nation is not either. We need to get back to the Wisdom God gives.

As an opponent of Trump and supporter of Pence, I still believe Trump has major problems that we must acknowledge. And I believe we need to repeatedly remember to call him as well as ourselves to repent and to obey God often.

I only know a few guys who loved Trump. Most of the people I know voted for his ticket because of Obama Care (the supposed Affordable Care Act) and the fact that the SCOTUS has a few seats to fill. They were also frustrated with the ineffectiveness of supposed conservatives to act on the moral and economic issues they were sent to Washington to deal with.  They also voted against Hillary Clinton because she seemingly has no moral compass and the corruption she represented has worn us out.  So has the ineffectiveness of our system.  The status quo has done very little in addressing the cares and destructiveness of bad policy and bad law.  They promised to address those things when they were voted in and actually stood by and allowed the last President to do things that shouldn’t have been done.  People voted against things and for change.  It is uncertain what that change will be.  Trump seemed to represent an outsider who understood these concerns.  It seems he wanted to address and fix these problems as someone who was not aligned with the status quo of ineffectiveness.

Just to get an understanding why Trump seems to have been elected allow me to share a good friend’s comments from my facebook page.

Patrick McGraw stated,
“People are tired of being called labels by elitists. People are tired of seeing corruption being paraded in front of there noses with no consequence knowing if they did the same thing they’d be in jail.. Tired of executive orders going around Congress like a king.
I don’t like Trump much either. But he’s got a shot to make things better where we’d know exactly where it would be with Hillary Clinton.
One thing I know. When this election is over there will be a day or two of people upset if Hillary wins. Some will say she stole the election. We’ll say yep we’ve elected a criminal whose made her family rich beyond belief while SOS. We’ll know exactly who she is. But after all is said and done we’ll take the result and gripe amongst ourselves and know what would’ve been if it had been anyone but Trump. But we’ll all take it like we always do. Not much Saul Alinsky in this party.

But if there is an upset tomorrow all those peaceful full of love Liberals will take to the streets like we’ve never seen before. Sorry but the politics of hate come from the left and you’ll see it full force if Trump wins.”

Did you see the protests that were being reported as the results were coming out last night?  Patrick apparently is correct.  It does seem some of the Liberal Force is full of hate.  Maybe there is hate on both sides and we all need to examine what level of hate we have and where it can be fixed and healed.

After the Election results came in a close friend of mine stated,  “I want the country unified again, I want a congress and Senate to be Congressmen and Senators with out the (R) or (D) and I want them to be there for the people who voted them into office.”  I understand his desire but we have to be realistic.  The (R) or (D) or whatever is inevitable. There will always be a destructive force this side unless men see Christ as King. There will always be poor people as Christ noted. But that doesn’t mean we have to live poorly and in conflict if we learn contentment and goodness towards each other. Natural / Moral Law teaches us to care and lift up. It teaches us to love, respect, and accept. Evil men hate this.  They have proven to be Covenant Breakers, Liars, and Riotous against truth.

If we want true healing we need to recognize the importance of caring for others and disciplining our desires that oppose what is moral and good.  BTW, I am including myself in the list of people who need to be humble and repent often as I am a man with like passions that opposes what is good.  I need the constant reconciling work of Christ on my behalf. I am grateful he has sealed my Eternal reconciliation with God but I also acknowledge that I need constant reeling in and repentance from sin that is ingrained in my being.


Last night the Associated Press gave Trump the Election around 2:30 am. Now let’s see if Obamacare and the crap we have endured like the homage to and giving  of our funds to enemies by Democrat fiat.  Let’s see if these things can be repaired. Let’s see what can be done about our boarders and our House of Representatives who act as though they have tenure. If the RINO’S (Republican In Name Only) want to be liberal let them go peddle their Socialism somewhere else. Let them run with Bernie Sanders.  Let’s also get back and acknowledge Moral / Natural Law. Without God we are at best a depraved people doing as we see fit without reference to say when crimes against nature or anyone are wrong.

I am grateful the Clinton’s and Obama are out of our hair for the time being.

May God grant us repentance and the grace to repent from our immoral lives.  May we not remain silent concerning perversity, sin, and crime.  May we move forward and approve good things and care for our neighbor as Jesus Christ told us to.  Life is good and we should remember where that goodness comes from and reflect that goodness.

Remember, I am not a Trump fan.  Hopefully he can come to a place of understanding his need for reconciliation to God and become humble.  I do believe the call God places upon all men to repent is a never ending call until He comes to restore all things.  God’s first call to men is to repent from Idolatry.  All men everywhere in every arena of life are called to repent and act accordingly.

Act 17:21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.
Act 17:22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.
Act 17:23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.
Act 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,
Act 17:25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.
Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,
Act 17:27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,
Act 17:28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’
Act 17:29 Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.
Act 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,
Act 17:31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

For those of us who have been given grace to repent we shouldn’t be proud or haughty.  God is able to humble us and remove

(Rom 11:13) Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry

(Rom 11:14) in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

(Rom 11:15) For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?

(Rom 11:16) If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

(Rom 11:17) But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,

(Rom 11:18) do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.

(Rom 11:19) Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

(Rom 11:20) That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.

May we also remember to do as St. Paul told us.

(1Ti 2:1) First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,

(1Ti 2:2) for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

(1Ti 2:3) This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,

(1Ti 2:4) who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(1Ti 2:5) For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

(1Ti 2:6) who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Be Encouraged, Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords.

Permanence of Marriage



A question was asked on the that I know a lot of people struggle with.  Especially since divorce is so prevalent in all of our lives.  I don’t know anyone who hasn’t been affected by divorce or remarriage.  I know there are some who believe that a person is bound to a marriage covenant as long as death has not entered into the equation.  That seems extreme to some people but it is based upon Romans 7.


(Rom 7:1)  Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

(Rom 7:2)  For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

(Rom 7:3)  So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

As I make reference to the passage in Romans 7 let me say something important.  Allow me to quote my old Pastor Kimber Kauffman, “If we desired we could make Ronald Reagan look like a Communist if we didn’t read him in context and if we lifted portions of things he said or wrote without knowing the whole thought or context.  The same is true for Scripture.  We have to take in the whole counsel of God and understand things in their context.

The question asked was in the Original post was about the Permanence of Marriage Movement.  I know that some people understand that the scriptures do not allow remarriage in any situation.  They have been around for a long time.  There is also the teaching that the Roman Church has concerning this situation and why they believe in annulments.

One of the best men I know responded splendidly to questions asked on the Puritanboard and I want to let him speak alone as I believe he is Biblical and spot on.  His title and name is Dr. Alan Strange.  He is an ordained Teaching Elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a Professor at Mid America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, Indiana.


Dr. Strange started his comments off on the Permanence of Marriage discussion with this observation.

Rome has historically permitted bed and board separation in the case of adultery (and desertion, in which the remaining party has no choice in the matter).

The key here is whether remarriage is permitted. If remarriage is not permitted to the innocent party after adultery, for instance, then there is no biblical doctrine of divorce present. This is because if the divorce is biblically lawful, then the remarriage is lawful.

If remarriage is not considered ever lawful, then there is no true doctrine of divorce: this is patently unbiblical, whether practiced by Rome or some Protestant groups.

Let me be painfully clear: if the right of remarriage for the innocent party after divorce or the remaining party after desertion is denied, there is no biblical doctrine of divorce and remarriage present and God’s Word has plainly been denied, no matter how pious those holding such appear to be.

A question was then asked….

“Why the innocent party only? The divorce would be lawful for both parties.

To the OP, my previous church’s pastor held this view (Calvinist, but not confessionally Reformed). He took the passages on divorce in the case of adultery as addressing breaking of an engagement, not marriage.”

Dr. Strange responded…

I grant you that there may be mitigating circumstances for the guilty party in adultery and for the leaving party in desertion (conversion, for example), as well as disputes about what precisely constitutes desertion, all of which impact the consideration of remarriage.

However, those disputes are properly internecine ones among those who hold to the Bible and the WCF. Whether there is a right of real divorce and remarriage for the innocent and remaining parties is not a matter of dispute, but settled doctrine (v. WCF 24).

To address your question now more decidedly, let’s take the adultery exception. The reason that the guilty party has no right of remarriage ordinarily (notice that word) is because the guilty party has no right of divorce. Only the innocent party has such a right. And thus the right to remarry. One may not, in other words, commit adultery and say “Well, I’ve committed adultery and I now have the right to divorce and remarriage.” No, only the innocent party has the right of divorce and remarriage.

In the desertion case, the unbeliever may well get remarried, not thinking that they are bound by God’s law at all. That does not mean that they are not, however. They are and they have no proper right of remarriage, because they improperly and unlawfully left their mate.

So, no, ordinarily all the rights accrue to the innocent and remaining parties.

A responding question was asked….
“Thanks for your response. I’m asking more to the case of the innocent party divorcing. The guilty party is also divorced, correct? In which case they are no longer married. Why cannot they also remarry? I’m not in this situation, nor have I ever been (or anyone I know). I’m just curious.

Dr. Strange responded…

Because the right to divorce and the right to remarry are inextricably linked. Only one possessing the former also enjoys the latter.

If one committed adultery and that led to divorce, one has no ordinary right of remarriage thereafter. The right of remarriage is not a reward for committing adultery. It only pertains to the innocent party.

What the guilty party should do is repent and recognize that he has no ordinary right of remarriage (which is part of the repentance in this case).


Dr. Strange responded to something that took me back.  A person brought up the truth of Ephesians that marriage is to be a picture of Christ and the Church.  I found his answer very insightful.

Marriage is a picture of Christ and his church, Christ will not leave or forsake his church.

 Dr. Strange responded to this…

This is thought to be sound-reasoning, doubtless; but it is, in fact, specious.

It is quite true that Christ will never leave nor forsake his own. It is not the case, however, that Christ will not withdraw the candle-stand, and thus his blessing and presence, from a church that has shown itself to be, as a visible church, not his own.

Similarly in terms of the church discipline of individuals: The above-stated position would suggest that Christ will not put someone out whom he has claimed by baptism and who has professed his faith and interest in Christ. But we know, of course, that those who by their life show themselves to be no true disciples, are indeed to be put out of the congregation. It is simply not the case that Christ will not disown those who, though having professed him, refuse to follow him. Do we need to give all the biblical citations for this?

One who sins against the marriage, who breaks the marriage vow by outward and actual adultery, is liable to be put outside the marriage, by a proclamation that no true marriage any longer obtains. The innocent party is not obliged to divorce the guilty but may do so, and in some instances, should likely do so (to maintain the institution of marriage that the guilty party has so badly besmirched).

To confess the permanence of marriage in this life is to make an idol of marriage, just as to confess that civil rebellion is never warranted under any circumstances is to make an idol of the state (or that the church must always be obeyed: that makes an idol of the church). All institutions given by God are relativized by our sinful estate and the commands of God for our relief in such. Only God is absolute and only he is to be obeyed at all times without qualification. Civil governors, ecclesiastical officers, and husbands do not enjoy inviolable authority. States, churches, and marriages may be dissolved in the proper circumstances. To teach otherwise is to establish a tyranny unrecognized by God’s Word.


Daniel Ritchie responded with another comment that I thought pertinent.

The analogy is not an exact one. The likeness between a marriage between a Christian man and his wife and Christ and the Church is an analogical likeness, not a univocal one. Otherwise, one would have to assume that the marriage between a husband and wife goes on throughout eternity, which is obviously unbiblical and unconfessional, as marriage is only for the present life.


Another person asked this question…

Dr. Strange,
Does the offended party in the case of sexual immorality have the right to divorce or the requirement to divorce?


Dr. Strange responded with a statement he made earlier.

The innocent party is not obliged to divorce the guilty but may do so

As I noted above, the innocent party has the right to sue out a divorce (in the language of WCF 24.5).



A following question was asked…

Yes, I understand the WCF says they have the right to sue according to 24.5. I am asking on what basis would someone determine whether or not to sue. If it’s not required, but merely a choice, on what basis do they make that choice?


Dr. Strange’s response…

I would say that many factors would go into determining whether or not one would sue out a divorce, including what Edward notes immediately above (carefully considering the counsel of the Session).

Edwards note….

[Reference was made upthread to the PCA study report by the Baptist missionary.

I would highlight this portion:

“i. That in matters pertaining to sexual immorality and desertion, the pastor and Ruling Elders are responsible for providing counsel, direction and judgment, according to the Scriptures and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America.”]

Strange Continues….

Having dealt with a number of adultery cases before, I would say that the chief factors in my counsel are both the nature and degree of the sin(s), the nature of the repentance and sincere seeking of reconciliation. These things all very widely and one has to take each case and all its details into account.

I do believe that the language you employ (“merely a choice”) prejudices this in a way that neither the Scripture nor the Standards do. The Standards say “it is lawful,” meaning that it is in keeping with God’s law, and is not a violation of God’s law, to do so. This is all quite a bit weightier than “merely a choice” suggests (vanilla or chocolate is merely a choice; this is far more serious). I think that all the sorts of things that I mentioned above would (the details and circumstances of the case) suggest when one might refrain from divorce in such cases and when one should engage in such.

For example, and this is the “easy case,” a party that has committed and continues impenitently to commit adultery should not be allowed to continue on as if there is any longer a meaningful marriage here. These sorts of observations could be multiplied many times over but I wouldn’t think that would really be necessary.


I am standing by to see how this conversation continues.  But I find Dr. Alan Strange to be full of wisdom as an Elder and Shepherd of the flock.  I also appreciate the fact that he acknowledges that remarriage may be unlawful for the offending member.

The next question is mine based upon the following.

Dr. Strange stated…
“If one committed adultery and that led to divorce, one has no ordinary right of remarriage thereafter. The right of remarriage is not a reward for committing adultery. It only pertains to the innocent party. 

What the guilty party should do is repent and recognize that he has no ordinary right of remarriage (which is part of the repentance in this case).”

I am standing by to see how this conversation continues.  But I find Dr. Alan Strange to be full of wisdom as an Elder and Shepherd of the flock.






I have been discussing Donald Trump lately on my Facebook page.  I have grown overly alarmed at how many people actually believe he is a good man who speaks truthfully and honestly.  My posts have caused a few of my friends that I personally see in life to defriend me and stop listening.  They want to believe in someone who is going to deliver our Country out of the hands of the Liberals and give us security from enemies abroad.  I sincerely understand those desires but I do not believe Trump is that man.  So I posted some of the following on my page today and would petition those of you who desire for Trump to be Elected President of the United States to reconsider.  I do believe there is a better choice.

Please, Please, Please listen to me. I know some of you guys who love Trump have tuned me out but please listen…….

A form of Idolatry is when we make a false representation of something or someone and set our hopes upon them. I believe Christian Leaders such as Jerry Falwell Jr. have helped in casting a false image of Trump by declaring Trump to be a Christian who will protect Christianity. That just isn’t true. For instance, today Trump has revealed a bit more about himself. And hopefully some of the blinders will start falling off of Christians and decent Americans. Trump entered the North Carolina bathroom debate today noting that a person should be able to enter and use the bathroom that they feel most comfortable entering in. That is not a position that will protect the Church nor those who want to uphold the Moral Law of God. It is a position that will be harmful to our families.

This is where I believe Trump’s Chameleon Buffoonery starts to reveal itself. He is taking the soundbite of the Press and leaning on it for support. If it was beneficial for him to side with true common sense he would have thrown in his support for the North Carolina Law. But he didn’t. He is a Liberal New Yorker with an Amoral view of Life and Liberty. it is what it is. All I can do is shake my head in sadness and ask the Lord to open our eyes. Trump has been able to deceive many people about who he is I believe.

Another comment I hear is that Trump is better than Hillary?I am not sure about that. He is too Chameleon like to prove anything. He plays to the fringe. He also still has to work with an inept House where a bigger problem lays. He was also proud to vote for Obama and endorses Universal Healthcare as well as that Depraved organization Planned Parenthood. If he is better it ain’t by much.

I also would warn others about a man who doesn’t think he has ever needed to confess sin before God. Trump does not believe he has ever done that nor does he want to.  It isn’t needful as far as he is concerned.  So he is basically calling God out and saying the Holy Scriptures are false. That man is obviously a liar according to 1 John Chapter 1 and is self deluded by major narcissism. There are better Republican Candidates. He is not one of them. He is like Hillary in and dangerous in my estimation.  He is definitely very poor example for our children.

Maybe we deserve to be given such a leader.  I am saddened to think we do.  But if we Repent maybe God will have Mercy on us and grant us the Grace to have a good leader despite who we have become.  He was merciful to Nineveh for the sake of those who couldn’t discern between left and right yet and for all those who were young.

Witsius, The Covenant of Works Abrogated


Of the Abrogation of the Covenant of Works

Section XX

“And that covenant [of works] is so really abrogated, that it can on no account be renewed. For, should we imagine God saying to man, “If, for the future, thou canst perfectly keep my law, thou shalt thereby acquire a right to eternal life,” God would not by such words renew this very covenant of works; for sin is now pre-supposed to exist, which is contrary to that perfection of obedience which the covenant of works requires. God would therefore transact here with man on a different condition, whereby, forgiving the former sin, he would prescribe a condition of an obedience less perfect than that which he stipulated by the covenant of works; which, excluding all sin, knew nothing of forgiveness of sin. Nay, such a transaction would be so far from a renewal of the covenant of works, that it would rather manifestly destroy it; for the penal sanction makes a part of that covenant, whereby God threatened the sinner with death: so that, if he forgave him without a due satisfaction, he would act contrary to the covenant and his own truth.” Herman Witsius, “Economy of the Covenants. Volume 1 p. 199

Google Books Witsius Economy

It appears Robert Shaw agrees with Witsius.

As Robert Shaw states,  Adam was created under this Law in a natural form but then was  brought under it in the form of a Covenant.

Section I.–God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

The law, as thus inscribed on the heart of the first man, is often styled the law of creation, because it was the will of the sovereign Creator, revealed to the reasonable creature, by impressing it upon his mind and heart at his creation. It is also called the moral law, because it was a revelation of the will of God, as his moral governor, and was the standard and rule of man’s moral actions. Adam was originally placed under this law in its natural form, as merely directing and obliging him to perfect obedience. He was brought under it in a covenant form, when an express threatening of death, and a gracious promise of life, was annexed to it; and then a positive precept was added, enjoining him not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as the test of his obedience to the whole law.–Gen. ii. 16, 17. That this covenant was made with the first man, not as a single person, but as the federal representative of all his natural posterity, has been formerly shown. The law, as invested with a covenant form, is called, by the Apostle Paul, “The law of works” (Rom. iii. 27); that is, the law as a covenant of works. In this form, the law is to be viewed as not only prescribing duty, but as promising life as the reward of obedience, and denouncing death as the punishment of transgression. ….

Section II.–This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.


Upon the fall of man, the law, considered as a covenant of works, was annulled and set asidebut, considered as moral, it continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness. That fair copy of the law which had been inscribed on the heart of the first man in his creation, was, by the fall, greatly defaced, although not totally obliterated. Some faint impressions of it still remain on the minds of all reasonable creatures. Its general principles, such as, that God is to be worshipped, that parents ought to be honoured, that we should do to others what we would reasonably wish that they should do to us–such general principles as these are still, in some degree, engraved on the minds of all men. – Rom. ii. 14,15. But the original edition of the law being greatly obliterated, God was graciously pleased to give a new and complete copy of it. He delivered it to the Israelites from Mount Sinai, with awful solemnity. In this promulgation of the law, he summed it up in ten commandments; and, therefore, it is commonly styled the Law of the Ten Commandments.

Also see…

Images of Jesus, idolatry?


This topic comes up ever so often. I find that this issue is a sticky one. There is much ignorance in our thinking and in the the thinking of the Church about the historical biblical position on images of Christ. Pastor Andrew Webb did a splendid job on this in an essay so I am bringing more attention to his brief study on the subject.

In the first place, one may make no images of God whatsoever; that is, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Firstly, this is absolutely forbidden in this commandment and in many other passages. Consider only the following passage: “Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves…lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven” (Deut. 4:12, 15–19). Who then, while believing the Word of God, would be so bold to act blatantly contrary to this and make images of God—a practice clearly forbidden?

Thanks for all you do Pastor Webb.

Should we make Images of Jesus?
The Relationship between
the Second Commandment and Images of Christ

The Following is a Brief listing of just some of the Reformed Evangelical witnesses that directly address the creation and use of pictures of Jesus, either in worship, decoration, art, or mental imagery. They are arranged in chronological order from the Reformation to the present day.

Table of Contents
(1561) The Second Helvetic Confession – Chapter IV
(1648) The Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 109
(1674) Thomas Vincent, A Family Instructional Guide
(1679) John Owen, The Glory of Christ
(1692) Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments
(1700) Wilhelmus A’Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service
(1753) Ebenezer Erskine and James Fisher, The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Explained, By Way of Question and Answer
(1949) J.G. Vos (son of Geerhardus Vos) Commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism
(1961) Prof. John Murray, Pictures of Christ
(1970) G.I. Williamson, The Shorter Catechism For Study Classes
(1973 & 1993) J.I. Packer, Knowing God, Chapter 4
(2004) Andrew Webb, Final Thoughts

(1561) The Second Helvetic Confession – Chapter IV (Of Idols or Images of God, Christ and The Saints)
Images of God. Since God as Spirit is in essence invisible and immense, he cannot really be expressed by any art or image. For this reason we have no fear pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come to abolish the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (II Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (II Cor. 3:16). But what agreement has the temple of God with idols? (II Cor. 6:16).

(1648) The Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 109
Q109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A109: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,[1] counseling,[2] commanding,[3] using,[4] and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;[5] tolerating a false religion;[6] the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever;[7] all worshiping of it,[8] or God in it or by it;[9] the making of any representation of feigned deities,[10] and all worship of them, or service belonging to them;[11] all superstitious devices,[12] corrupting the worship of God,[13] adding to it, or taking from it,[14] whether invented and taken up of ourselves,[15] or received by tradition from others,[16] though under the title of antiquity,[17] custom,[18] devotion,[19] good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever;[20] simony;[21] sacrilege;[22] all neglect,[23] contempt,[24] hindering,[25] and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.[26]

1. Num. 15:39 14. Deut. 4:2
2. Deut. 13:6-8 15. Psa. 106:39
3. Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16 16. Matt. 15:9
4. I Kings 11:33; 12:33 17. I Peter 1:18
5. Deut. 12:30-32 18. Jer. 44:17
6. Deut. 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2-3; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20, Rev. 17:12, 16-17 19. Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13-14
7. Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23, 25 20. I Sam. 13:11-12; 15:21
8. Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8 21. Acts 8:18
9. Exod. 32:5 22. Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8
10. Exod. 32:8 23. Exod. 4:24-26
11. I Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 65:11 24. Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7, 13
12. Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23 25. Matt. 23:13
13. Mal. 1:7-8, 14 26. Acts 13:44-45; I Thess. 2:15-16

(1674) Thomas Vincent, A Family Instructional Guide
“QUESTION 5: Is it not lawful to have images or pictures of God by us, so we do not worship them, nor God by them?
ANSWER: The images or pictures of God are an abomination, and utterly unlawful, because they debase God, and may be a cause of idolatrous worship.
QUESTION 6: Is it not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, he being a man as well as God?
ANSWER: It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine nature cannot be pictured at all; and because his body, as it is now glorified, cannot be pictured as it is; and because, if it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment.” [Thomas Vincent, A Family Instructional Guide]

(1679) John Owen, The Glory of Christ
Many there are who, not comprehending, not being affected with, that divine, spiritual description of the person of Christ which is given us by the Holy Ghost in the Scripture, do feign unto themselves false representations of him by images and pictures, so as to excite carnal and corrupt affections in their minds. By the help of their outward senses, they reflect on their imaginations the shape of a human body, cast into postures and circumstances dolorous or triumphant; and so, by the working of their fancy, raise a commotion of mind in themselves, which they suppose to be love unto Christ. But all these idols are teaches of lies. The true beauty and amiableness of the person of Christ, which is the formal object and cause of divine love, is so far from being represented herein, as that the mind is thereby wholly diverted from the contemplation of it. For no more can be so pictured unto us but what may belong unto a mere man, and what is arbitrarily referred unto Christ, not by faith, but by corrupt imagination.

The beauty of the person of Christ, as represented in the Scripture, consists in things invisible unto the eyes of flesh. They are such as no hand of man can represent or shadow. It is the eye of faith alone that can see this King in his beauty. What else can contemplate on the untreated glories of his divine nature? Can the hand of man represent the union of his natures in the same person, wherein he is peculiarly amiable? What eye can discern the mutual communications of the properties of his different natures in the same person, which depends thereon, whence it is that God laid down his life for us, and purchased his church with his own blood? In these things, O vain man! does the loveliness of the person of Christ unto the souls of believers consist, and not in those strokes of art which fancy has guided a skilful hand and pencil unto. And what eye of flesh can discern the inhabitation of the Spirit in all fulness in the human nature? Can his condescension, his love, his grace, his power, his compassion, his offices, his fitness and ability to save sinners, be deciphered on a tablet, or engraven on wood or stone? However such pictures may be adorned, however beautified and enriched, they are not that Christ which the soul of the spouse does love; they are not any means of representing his love unto us, or of conveying our love unto him; they only divert the minds of superstitious persons from the Son of God, unto the embraces of a cloud, composed of fancy and imagination.

Others there are who abhor these idols, and when they have so done, commit sacrilege. As they reject images, so they seem to do all love unto the person of Christ, distinct from other acts of obedience, as a fond imagination. But the most superstitious love unto Christ that is, love acted in ways tainted with superstition is better than none at all. But with what eyes do such persons read the Scriptures? With what hearts do they consider them? What do they conceive is the intention of the Holy Ghost in all those descriptions which he gives us of the person of Christ as amiable and desirable above all things, making wherewithal a proposal of him unto our affections inciting us to receive him by faith, and to cleave unto him in love? yea, to what end is our nature endued with this affection unto what end is the power of it renewed in us by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit if it may not be fixed on this most proper and excellent object of it? This is the foundation of our love unto Christ namely, the revelation and proposal of him unto us in the Scripture as altogether lovely. The discovery that is made therein of the glorious excellencies and endowments of his person of his love, his goodness, and grace of his worth and work is that which engageth the affections of believers unto him. It may be said, that if there be such a proposal of him made unto all promiscuously, then all would equally discern his amiableness and be affected with it, who assent equally unto the truth of that revelation. But it has always fallen out otherwise. In the days of his flesh, some that looked on him could see neither “ form nor comeliness ” in him Therefore he should be desired; others saw his glory “ glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth ”. To some he is precious; unto others he is disallowed and rejected a stone which the builders refused, when others brought it forth, crying, “ Grace, grace unto it ” as the head of the corner. Some can see nothing but weakness in him; unto others the wisdom and power of God do evidently shine forth in him. Therefore it must be said, that notwithstanding that open, plain representation that is made of him in the Scripture, unless the holy Spirit gives us eyes to discern it, and circumcise our hearts by the cutting off corrupt prejudices and all effects of unbelief, implanting in them, by the efficacy of his grace, this blessed affection of love unto him, all these things will make no impression on our minds.

As it was with the people on the giving of the law, notwithstanding all the great and mighty works which God had wrought among them, yet having not given them “ a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear ” which he affirms that he had not done, Deut. 29:4, they were not moved unto faith or obedience by them; so is it in the preaching of the gospel. Notwithstanding all the blessed revelation that is made of the excellencies of the person of Christ therein, yet those into whose hearts God does not shine to give the knowledge of his glory in his face, can discern nothing of it, nor are their hearts affected with it.

We do not, therefore, in these things, follow “ cunningly-devised fables. ” We do not indulge unto our own fancies and imaginations; they are not unaccountable raptures or ecstasies which are pretended unto, nor such an artificial conjoining of thoughts as some ignorant of these things do boast that they can give an account of.

Our love to Christ ariseth alone from the revelation that is made of him in the Scripture is ingenerated, regulated, measured, and is to be judged thereby.

(1692) Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments
If it is not lawful to make the image of God the Father, yet may we not make an image of Christ, who took upon him the nature of man?
No! Epiphanies, seeing an image of Christ hanging in a church, brake it in pieces. It is Christ’s Godhead, united to his manhood, that makes him to be Christ; therefore to picture his manhood, when we cannot picture his Godhead, is a sin, because we make him to be but half Christ – we separate what God has joined, we leave out that which is the chief thing which makes him to be Christ.

(1700) Wilhelmus A’Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service
Question: Are men permitted to make images of God—that is, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and of deceased saints, in order to worship and honor them, or to serve God and the saints by them?

We declare, on the contrary, that the making of images of the Trinity is absolutely forbidden. We neither know the spiritual nature of the angels nor the true physical appearance of Christ and the apostles. Thus, the images made of them are without resemblance, and it is vanity to make an image and say: That is Christ, that is Mary, that is Peter, etc. Yes, even if we had their true pictures, we may nevertheless not worship, honor, nor engage in any religious activity toward them. We may not honor Christ, Mary, Peter, and other saints in this manner. The question is twofold, and we shall refute each part individually.

In the first place, one may make no images of God whatsoever; that is, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Firstly, this is absolutely forbidden in this commandment and in many other passages. Consider only the following passage: “Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves…lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven” (Deut. 4:12, 15–19). Who then, while believing the Word of God, would be so bold to act blatantly contrary to this and make images of God—a practice clearly forbidden?

Secondly, God cannot be depicted and it is therefore God’s will that such ought not to occur. “To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?” (Isa. 40:18).

Thirdly, it highly dishonors God. “And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things” (Rom. 1:23). The Papists readily imitate this. They depict God the Father in the appearance of a man, that is, of an old man; God the Son in the appearance of a four–footed beast, that is, of a lamb; and God the Holy Spirit in the appearance of a bird, that is, a dove. They thus dishonor God as the heathen do.

Fourthly, it corrupts man. “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves…lest ye corrupt yourselves” (Deut. 4:15–16). For this prompts man to think of God—who is a Spirit, and who must be served in Spirit—in physical terms.

Objection #2: Both the images of God and of the saints have educational value .
(1) God has nevertheless forbidden this. This is pagan thinking and we should not pretend it to be beneficial, since it is forbidden.
(2) God will not have us taught by dumb images, but by His Word. “Thy testimonies also are my delight and my counsellors. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Ps. 119:24,105).

(1753) Ebenezer Erskine and James Fisher, The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Explained, By Way of Question and Answer
Q. 9. May we not have a picture of Christ, who has a true body?
A. By no means; because, though he has a true body and a reasonable soul, John 1:14, yet his human nature subsists in his divine person, which no picture can represent, Psalm 45:2.

Q. 10. Why ought all pictures of Christ to be abominated by Christians?
A. Because they are downright lies, representing no more than the picture of a mere man: whereas, the true Christ is God-man; “Immanuel, God with us,” 1 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 1:23.

(1949) J.G. Vos (son of Geerhardus Vos) Commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism
2. Is it wrong to make paintings or pictures of our Savior Jesus Christ? According to the Larger Catechism, this is certainly wrong, for the catechism interprets the second commandment as forbidding the making of any representation of any of the three persons of the Trinity, which would certainly include Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, God the Son. While pictures of Jesus are extremely common in the present day, we should realize that in Calvinistic circles this is a relatively modern development. Our forefathers at the time of the Reformation, and for perhaps 300 years afterward, scrupulously refrained, as a matter of principle, from sanctioning or making use of pictures of Jesus Christ. Such pictures are so common in the present day, and so few people have conscientious objections to them, that; it is practically impossible to obtain any Sabbath School helps or Bible story; material for children that is free of such pictures. The American Bible Society is to be commended for its decision that the figure of the Savior may not appear in Bible motion pictures issued by the Society.

3. What attitude should we adopt in view of the present popularity of pictures of Jesus Christ? The following considerations may be suggested as bearing on this question: (a) The Bible presents no information whatever about the personal appearance of Jesus Christ, but it does teach that we are not to think of him as he may have appeared “in the days of his flesh,” but as he is today in heavenly glory, in his estate of exaltation (2 Cor. 5:46). (b) Inasmuch as the Bible presents no data about the personal appearance of our Savior, all artists’ pictures of him are wholly imaginary and constitute only the artists’ ideas of his character and appearance. (c) Unquestionably pictures of the Savior have been very greatly influenced by the theological viewpoint of the artist. The typical modem picture of Jesus is the product of nineteenth-century “Liberalism” and presents a “gentle Jesus” who emphasized only the love and Fatherhood of God and said little or nothing about sin, judgment, and eternal punishment. (d) Perhaps more people living today have derived their ideas of Jesus Christ from these typically “liberal” pictures of Jesus than have derived their ideas of Jesus from the Bible itself. Such people inevitably think of Jesus as a human person, rather than thinking of him according to the biblical teaching as a divine person with a human nature. The inevitable effect of the popular acceptance of pictures of Jesus is to overemphasize his humanity and to forget or neglect his deity (which of course no picture can portray). (e) In dealing with an evil so widespread and almost universally accepted, we should bear a clear testimony against what we believe to be wrong, but we should not expect any sudden change in Christian sentiment on this question. It will require many years of education in scriptural principles before the churches and their members can be brought back to the high position of the Westminster Assembly on this question. Patience will be required.

4. Are not pictures of Jesus legitimate provided they are not worshiped or used as “aids to worship”? As interpreted by the Westminster Assembly, the second commandment certainly forbids all representations of any of the persons of the Trinity, and this coupled with the truth taught in the Westminster Standards that Christ is a divine person with a human nature taken into union with himself, and not a human person, would imply that it is wrong to make pictures of Jesus Christ for any purpose whatever. Of course, there is a difference between using pictures of Jesus to illustrate children’s Bible story books or lessons, and using pictures of Jesus in worship as Roman Catholics use them. Admittedly the former is not an evil in the same class with the latter. In spite of this distinction, however, there are good reasons for holding that our forefathers of the Reformation were right in opposing all pictorial representation of the Savior. We should realize that the popularity – even the almost unchallenged prevalence – of a particular practice does not prove that it is right. To prove that a practice is right we must show that it is in harmony with the commands and principles revealed in the Word of God. Merely showing that a practice is common, is useful, or seems to have good results does not prove it is right.

(1961) Prof. John Murray, Pictures of Christ
“Secondly, pictures of Christ are in principle a violation of the second commandment. A picture of Christ, if it serves any useful purpose, must evoke some thought or feeling respecting him and, in view of what he is, this thought or feeling will be worshipful. We cannot avoid making the picture a medium of worship. But since the materials for this medium of worship are not derived from the only revelation we possess respecting Jesus, namely, Scripture, the worship is constrained by a creation of the human mind that has no revelatory warrant. This is will-worship. For the principle of the second commandment is that we are to worship God only in ways prescribed and authorized by him. It is a grievous sin to have worship constrained by a human figment, and that is what a picture of the Saviour involves.”

(1970) G.I. Williamson, The Shorter Catechism For Study Classes
The second commandment is broken when men attempt to make a graven image or a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches us that there is one God. It teaches us to worship the three persons, the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. But Paul tells us that we “ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone graven by art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29)…

There was a time when the Protestants recognized this evil. They saw the images in the Roman Catholic Church and they understood that this was a violation of the second commandment. They realized that this was wrong – this making of images and likenesses of Christ – even though the Roman Catholic Church was careful to say that it did not want people to worship these images, but only to worship the Lord through these images. But now, it seems, many Protestants have accepted the Roman Catholic position. They may not realize this. And they may still think, in their minds, that there is an important difference between a statue (image) and a picture (likeness). But the commandment recognizes no such difference. It forbids us to make any likeness, just as it forbids us to make any image, of the Lord.

J. I. Packer can be accessed here…

(2004) Andrew Webb – Final Thoughts
To the arguments that are made above, I would add this pragmatic argument against making pictures of Jesus that I find particularly compelling.

Jesus is the Lord of the Nations. In Him the middle wall of separation is decisively broken down and “there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free.” When we make a picture of Christ we inevitably portray him as representative of one race or another. Mel Gibson’s Jesus, for instance, is obviously very white. We have once again created a false Jesus that one race can feel comfortable with. He is “one of us.” While this is comforting to members of that particular race, it is inevitably irritating to people of other cultures and can actually be a barrier to communicating the gospel to other nations and races. As a result of all the images of the Scandinavian Hippy that westerners have called Jesus, there has been an inevitable backlash and now images of Asian, Middle-Eastern, African, etc. Jesus’ are being demanded, and these counter-images offend many Westerners. “That’s not Jesus!” they angrily proclaim, because they know what Jesus looks like – they’ve been seeing images of him since they were children. He’s tall, and blond, has a beard and a vaguely sorrowful expression.

The sad thing about this whole argument over what Jesus looked like is that it is so needless. The Apostolic church turned the whole world upside-down via the preaching of the Gospel. Not once did they use pictures of Jesus. What would Peter or Paul say coming into one of our churches and seeing one of our many images of Jesus? Obviously they wouldn’t recognize it as the image of the Savior they knew. Wouldn’t they assume that this was yet another example of the kind of Hellenistic idolatry they were so familiar, “Men of America, I perceive that in all things you are very religious…” Aren’t we best served proclaiming the gospel of a Christ who is too glorious to be portrayed as a mere man from any one race?

The Day of Your Visitation

Luk 19:41 And when he (Jesus) drew near and saw the city (Jerusalem), he wept over it,
Luk 19:42 saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side
Luk 19:44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
English Standard Version


Luk 19:41 And when he (Jesus) was come near (Jerusalem), he beheld the city, and wept over it,
Luk 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
Luk 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
King James Version

That was part of the passage Pastor James Faris preached yesterday at 2nd Reformed Presbyterian Church. I have always been taken by the phrase “day of visitation” because it seems that most of us experience certain times in life when God softens our hearts to hear His counsel.  We either heed it or we harden our hearts against it.  This is true for the believer and the non-believer.

For the believer this time of visitation is usually for encouragement and strength or for something we need to repent of.  For the unbeliever it is a call to be reconciled to God. It is a message to believe in the person and work of Christ so that they might have everlasting life.  A day of visitation can also be a time of recompense for the evil a person or even Nations have to account for.

I may be incorrect but it seems that there are certain times when He visits the soul. You shouldn’t say tomorrow, tomorrow I will take care of the thing God is visiting me about. Our hearts are too fickle, easily hardened, and God doesn’t have a limitless patience. He is longsuffering but he does have a time frame that shouldn’t be neglected. I think I can back this up with the following passage along with a warning from the book of Hebrews.

Revelation chapter 2

Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
Rev 2:21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

If you ever have a chance, note all of the instances where the word visitation is used in the Scriptures. It is a fascinating nugget of God’s word. It seems it signifies days of judgment or times when men may be called to account for their lives either in this world or the world to come.  When you do it keep in mind two passages if you are a believer.  Our actions as children of God might have some effect upon others when they have a ‘day of visitation’.

Matthew chapter 5

Mat 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.
Mat 5:14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
Mat 5:15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.
Mat 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

1 Peter chapter 2

1Pe 2:11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.
1Pe 2:12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

Just a few examples from the Old Testament..

Isa 10:3 And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?

Jer 8:12 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.

And a warning to not harden our hearts in the the times of temptation and days of visitation…

Heb 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
Heb 3:5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
Heb 3:6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
Heb 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
Heb 3:8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
Heb 3:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
Heb 3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
Heb 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
Heb 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
Heb 3:13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
Heb 4:5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Heb 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Heb 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

Reading Our Bibles In Halves


Matthew Henry states,

“Note, therefore it is that people run into mistakes, because they read their Bibles by the halves, and are as partial in the prophets as they are in the law. They are only for the smooth things, Isa. 30:10. Thus now we are too apt, in reading the prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled, to have our expectations raised of the glorious state of the church in the latter days. But we overlook its wilderness sackcloth state, and are willing to fancy that is over, and nothing is reserved for us but the halcyon days; and then, when tribulation and persecution arise, we do not understand it, neither know we the things that are done, though we are told as plainly as can be that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. – Matthew Henry on Luke 18:31-34.”

I once noted to myself that the Prophet Jeremiah was one of my favorite Prophets.  He didn’t see much fruit or revival towards God and he was sent to preach to a people who wouldn’t hear.  And he knew this.

I have been rather bitter lately.  I am an old Navy Veteran with some theological accumen.  I have been the kid in the neighborhood who pillaged things you didn’t know you would miss.  I have smoked my fair share of marijuana and have friends of many different lifestyles.  In all of that I still had a knowledge of what was good behavior and bad behavior.  I didn’t try to justify my behavior.  I liked doing the wrong things but I didn’t need to move the boundaries of truth to justify my behavior.  A pervert is a pervert.  A Wackadoodle is a wackadoodle.  An Adulterer is an Adulterer.  A Thief is a Thief.  A Murder is a Murderer.  An Idolater is an Idlolater.  A Traitor is a Traitor.  Maybe you can see where I am going with this.

In the past decade I have seen the Church and Society redefine things that should never be redefined.  Not many people now days have the courage to stand up and own up.  They all have to feel like God is a kind nice dude who doesn’t care about the things we once thought he cared about.  Sin is no longer a word used to characterize bad behavior as it once was in society.  Mankind has many pills now to help us get over the fact that so many people feel degraded in their consciences.  Guilty feelings are bad.  They hinder growth and really prove nothing.  So what if a person left their mate (spouse) because they didn’t feel good anylonger in the relationship and because the excitement was gone.   So what if they desire another mate?  Adultery and violating a vow taken is nothing.  Time heals all things.  It matters not if you are truly guilty.  Now days we don’t have the Yatzee to just be honest.  Honesty would show we are guilty.  And we can’t have that.  So let’s make everything lawful even to the point of saying that homosexuality may be called marriage.  What a perversion.  And btw, that is perversion.  It perverts the very essence and definition of marriage.  That is why it is called perversion.

Well, as we are being distracted by the decades of divorce, adultery, pot smoking, etc.. etc.. etc.. other things have transpired that have me questioning what in the world happened?  Politicians have gone and endorsed things that haven’t been endorsed since the days of Rome.  We have also gone and allowed the President of the United States to violate the Constitution.  Our Nation is forced to buy things such as Health Care by punitive reinforcement.  We have watched the SCOTUS change the definition of marriage and promote perversion.  We have seen the POTUS’s man John Kerry (the Secretary of State) make a deal with our enemies in Iran that is beyond being a Traitor.  What is happening?  There was a time when God and Country meant something.  These people haven’t tried to remove our foundation.  They have succeeded.  And Nobody seems to be doing anything about it.  I thought we had checks and balances.

It will be interesting to see what Christ is doing through His Church in the next hundred years.  Kid’s now days don’t know they have violated God’s law.  Thanks to Television, their parents, and our wonderful political leaders.  They can’t even call a terrorist a terrorist.  There are so many examples of truth hiding it is over whelming.

I guess I should just be thankful for God’s grace and mercy, keep on telling people the truth concerning God’s Law, and not expect any more than what Matthew Henry has stated.   Maybe God will perform in generations to come as he did after Jeremiah’s time.  I sure pray for it.  I really expect it.  Christ is King and His Gospel is so wonderful.